Jail Sentence Reduced to Period Undergone Following Amicable Settlement and Compounding Exercise in Non-Compoundable Offences

On August 28, 2008, an FIR was lodged by PW-1 Bheem Singh against the appellant for assaulting him, his brother, and his mother.

The trial court (First Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa) in Sessions Trial No. 168 of 2008 acquitted the appellant under Sections 452 and 506 of the IPC but convicted him under Sections 323, 324, and 326 of the IPC on March 31, 2011.

The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment ranging from six months to three years.

The appellant challenged this conviction but subsequently confined the appeal strictly to the quantum of the sentence, noting he had already served 18 days in custody and had reached a compromise with the complainants.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 323, 324, and 326 of the IPC was sustainable based on the evidence on record.

2. Whether the substantive jail sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone in light of a compromise and the long pendency of the case.

The court applied Section 374(2) of the CrPC regarding the right to appeal conviction.

Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), and 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) of the IPC.

The court also considered Section 320(5) of the CrPC (now Section 395 of the BNSS, 2023) regarding the compounding of offences with the court's permission.

The court balanced the statutory penalties with judicial discretion regarding sentencing for first-time offenders.

The Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the trial court properly appreciated the evidence.

In analyzing the sentence, the Court noted that the appellant did not contest the merits but sought leniency based on several mitigating factors: the incident occurred in 2008 in the "heat of passion" without premeditation, the appellant had no prior criminal record, and he had cooperated throughout the 15-year legal ordeal.

Crucially, the parties filed a compromise application under Section 320(5) CrPC, and the complainants verified they no longer wished to prosecute.

Consequently, the Court determined that while the conviction must stand, the interests of justice would be served by substituting the remaining jail time with an enhanced fine, which would serve as compensation for the victims.

The substantive jail sentence was reduced to the 18 days already undergone. The fine was enhanced from a total of ₹2,000 to ₹5,000, to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 395 of the BNSS, 2023.

The appellant's bail bonds were discharged.